FIRST LOOK: Asus P5AD2-E - 1066FSB & DDR2-711
by Wesley Fink on November 29, 2004 12:01 AM EST- Posted in
- Motherboards
Performance Tests
DirectX 9 Gaming
If you refer to test results in the 925XE launch review, you will see that an apples to apples comparison at 3.2GHz (3.2EE/800 to 3.2EE/1066) showed virtually no difference in test results. This is a caution not to jump to conclusions about performance of the 3.46EE compared to the 3.6E in some benchmarks. The performance differences are the result of the larger cache on the 3.46EE and not the higher FSB.
As we have seen so often recently, the AMD Athlon 64 dominates DirectX 9 gaming. However, comparing the Intel boards, the Asus P5AD2-E is consistently the fastest board in almost every DX9 benchmark - edging out the Abit Fatal1ty AA8XE in most benchmarks.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
34 Comments
View All Comments
dariush - Friday, February 4, 2005 - link
For Gaming, AMD is better but not all computer users are gamer, When Talking about about video encoding and stability (must important in critical cases) you see Intel says the last words.Wesley Fink - Thursday, December 2, 2004 - link
#32 - I would sincerely appreciate your reading the review before posting comments. Overclocking is covered on p.3 - which is actually titled "Overclocking and Stress Testing".Second, this is a First Look which is less detailed that a full review - the idea is to bring you more reviews quicker. We used to include a page explaining this, but I removed it this go-round because I assumed the idea was well-known by now. It appears I was should have kept the explanation page in the review.
Third, First Look uses PCMark2004 as a General Performance comparison. However, as I stated in Comment #18 the complete Winstones and media encoding do not provide additional information. However, they are already posted in Comment #18 and I'll repeat them:
"We did run a full suite of benchmarks for future comparisons, but nothing really changes.
925XE/3.46EE - 925X/3.6E - nF4/FX55 - Benchmark
34.1 - 34.4 - 39.3 - MM Content Creation 04
26.7 - 26.5 - 31.1 - Business Winstone 04
73.1 - 73.4 - 69.1 - AutoGK DivX 5.1.1".
Fourth, we use a standard setup to allow easier comparisons. Where standard 1024x768 benchmarks are CPU or GPU bound we do use AA and/or higher resolutions to allow valid comparions of motherboard performance. For example Comanche 4 is run at 1280x1024 with 4X AA because 1024x768 without AA reveals nothing about true performance. The "Score" bench for Aquamark 3 uses 4AA by default. We run the newest games at highest settings as detailed in the chart descriptions.
T8000 - Thursday, December 2, 2004 - link
If you talk about enthousiast options, overclocking is usually one of them. Still, no single overclocked CPU was included in the benchmarks.There was also no mention about the 925XE containing more options to keep PCI-E within spec during overclocking.
Besides, there where only gaming benchmarks with high end GPU's running at 1024x768 with no AA or AF, thus creating an unlikely scenario with performance numbers that do not reflect real world performance differences, even for those who just play games.
Who would even consider buying a $500 GF6800U to play only at settings that a $200 GF6600GT does with ease?
danidentity - Wednesday, December 1, 2004 - link
#28 - The Dolby Digital Live encoding on this board is functionally the same as SoundStorm on the NF2 boards. No PCI sound cards currently support Dolby Digital Live.cALIx - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
Not to change the subject, but in this review, Doom 3 is listed as a dx9 game. Isnt D3 an opengl based game? If you open the console you can easily see all the gl_ extensions that are open. Also Hardocp always lists D3 as an opengl game when they benchmark with it. So I'm just wondering if someone could clear that up for me. I understand what they are individually, but i'm still confused as to how they work/dont work together...LoneWolf15 - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
Ouch...my brand new $140 MSI K8N Neo 2 mainboard and I feel sorry for those who choose to shell $250-300 for this board. Not that it's a bad piece of hardware, not that Intel's high-end P4 chips are bad hardware either...but you can do better for far less money, so why would you pay this kind of cash? Especially when you could balance out your system with the money you've saved by upping your graphics card or opting for more RAM or a faster hard disk. Guess I'm just someone who doesn't see the point in buying a Jaguar when an Acura RSX-S would do what I want for less.tc2k04 - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
I know i'm late, but,Did anybody else notice the talk about the audio solution, is this encoding comparable to the output of nforce2 boards? they say its a first for on the motherboard audio, can you buy seperate pci cards at reasonable prices which can do this?
i'm trying to get a sound solution that can output 2 channel audio in 5.1 through a digital out like my nforce2 onboard does. If this can do this, i might end up buying an intel.
Googer - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
Intel's engineering DEPT takes orders From queer mac using Marketers.Googer - Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - link
#3 it works. I have done it. Super7 is like a Swiss Army Knife.TrogdorJW - Monday, November 29, 2004 - link
Hey Wes,Any chance of some OC tests and numbers from a standard Prescott core?
I'm wondering if a 2.8E has the potential to reach a 1066 FSB overclock.
(I'm also including hard returns due to the overly long link someone posted.)
As the 2MB cache alleviates some of the pressures of the FSB, a 1MB cache might benefit more.
Besides, if a 2.8E could actually OC well to 3.73 GHz and a 1066 FSB, that might be worthwhile!